EDIT: Much appreciated if our fearless leaders could modify the thread title as necessary, subject title making fail on my part. Meant for it to read..."Playoff seeding & Divison winners - Completely change, slightly modify, or do nothing?"

This season and the current standings show that playoff seedings and the like could or should be modified, given how both 3rd place teams will pretty much have less points than the 4th/5th/6th seeded teams in the conference.

So, what would you change about this? Would you change anything at all?

Personally, I think there should be some type of award for winning your division as there is at present. Nothing wrong with that concept to me.

If you keep going this route however, somehow a concept of just two divisions in a conference perhaps, or keep the existing alignments, reward your division winners like usual these days, and re-seed the teams after the first round. Because more than likely if you do a re-seeding concept this year, 3rd place team would likely start the second round on the road, assuming those seeds win their first round series obviously.

Yeah get rid of division winners 1-2-3. This year it's going to be really bad. Pittsburgh and Philly will have the #2 and #3 records in the East but play each other 4 vs 5. It's also possible that New Jersey finishes higher than Boston landing in #6 despite having the 4th best record in the conference. Madness!

Having the division winners automatically be the top seed is fine. It ensures good representation and puts emphasis on winning the division. Otherwise there is really no point to win the division. Just get into the top eight. Also it probably has helped us a lot more than it has hurt us up to this point.

Having the division winners automatically be the top seed is fine. It ensures good representation and puts emphasis on winning the division. Otherwise there is really no point to win the division. Just get into the top eight. Also it probably has helped us a lot more than it has hurt us up to this point.

Why does a division winner "earn" anything? The division is a completely arbitrary creation for the purposes of scheduling. There is no point winning the division. But teams will play harder to win because their ranking will actually matter. Division titles should come as a side note to having a great season and finishing high up in the standings. They're only a goal for teams who will never win the conference, the presidents trophy or the Cup.

Division seeding is a joke that screws up the playoffs every year, though it hasn't been this bad in a few seasons. Get rid of it. It's also grotesquely unfair.

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

Why does a division winner "earn" anything? The division is a completely arbitrary creation for the purposes of scheduling. There is no point winning the division. But teams will play harder to win because their ranking will actually matter. Division titles should come as a side note to having a great season and finishing high up in the standings. They're only a goal for teams who will never win the conference, the presidents trophy or the Cup.

Division seeding is a joke that screws up the playoffs every year, though it hasn't been this bad in a few seasons. Get rid of it. It's also grotesquely unfair.

There is a point to winning the division because it means you automatically get a top seed.... That's the point. If they got rid of that than there's really no point for divisions. Just get rid of them and have two fifteen team conferences. The whole reason we have divisions is because it adds meaning to more games since more than just the top two teams and the 8th/9th teams are fighting for anything of significance. It also adds meaning to games earlier in the season since division games are crucial if you want to clinch your division.

Right now people are just mad at it because it's hurting us. But it has helped us a lot in the past and I'm sure people had no problem with it then.

What if Detroit plays Dallas at some point later in the playoffs (not the first round), who will have home ice in that series? I believe it would be Dallas, but I'm not sure. If that's so, it would be ridiculous indeed.

But this isn't just a hockey problem. In the NFL, you often have 8-8 teams winning a division and getting a home game over a team with 3 or 4 more wins. Likewise, some 10-6 teams winds up missing out on the playoffs altogether.

Going back to the NHL, you sometimes have another issue, where the 8 seed in one Conference has a lot fewer points than the 9-11 seeds in the other Conference, who end up missing the playoffs altogether. That also seems unfair.

You can have your division winner banner all you want, but being the best team in the worst division shouldn't automatically give you home ice over a better team, no matter what the logic is.

Everyone should agree with this.

I will say this... they should still make the playoffs for winning the division. I don't think this has ever happened... but in theory it could. If the weakest division had the top team not make the playoffs on pts, but make it on winning the division... I wouldn't mind. Just have them seeded 8.

"It is a lot easier to be an ******* to words than to people"-xkcd

Tootoo does NOT belong on this team. He is classless and I would rather see the Wings be bad than classless. I feel the same way about Bertuzzi as well, but he at least CAN make the team better. With Tootoo the team becomes worse and in danger of being classless. Would you have liked Claude on the team? Or Roy? No. So why would you be okay with that POS.

This thread has been closed due to emotions being higher than people's ability to read, interpret, and properly respond to simple posts.

I will say this... they should still make the playoffs for winning the division. I don't think this has ever happened... but in theory it could. If the weakest division had the top team not make the playoffs on pts, but make it on winning the division... I wouldn't mind. Just have them seeded 8.

And then the team who should have been seeded 8th and is now ninth will be pissed off. That only translocates the problem. And they lose a lot more by missing the playoffs completely rather than another team just losing a home advantage. At least they still get to play.

The bottom line is this, people want what ever system helps their team win. If we were in Dallas's place we would all be defending it as a great idea.

In all reality it's fine the way it is. People just feel the need to fight for every little advantage they can, reasonable or not.

Scrap the automatic seeds for the division winners. Top eight point totals in each conference makes the playoffs. If you don't like it, work on improving your team.

What I'd like to see in the playoffs is the top teams being able to pick their opponent. Let's say the Wings win the West and they like a certain match-up. They'd be able to pick that opponent no matter where that team is placed in the top eight. So you could see a No 1 seed play a No 2 seed in the opening round.

Definitely change it. Seeding by division is ridiculous. Just looking at the pacific division the past few games, a team goes from being in 9th place out of the playoffs to 3rd place with one game. Not fair and a dumb rule. They need to just seed by points total.

Change it.

Scrap the automatic seeds for the division winners. Top eight point totals in each conference makes the playoffs. If you don't like it, work on improving your team.

What I'd like to see in the playoffs is the top teams being able to pick their opponent. Let's say the Wings win the West and they like a certain match-up. They'd be able to pick that opponent no matter where that team is placed in the top eight. So you could see a No 1 seed play a No 2 seed in the opening round.

This is a really neat idea, but I kind of would be weary because it's like picking your poison! lol

You can have your division winner banner all you want, but being the best team in the worst division shouldn't automatically give you home ice over a better team, no matter what the logic is.

This right here boys & girls...

I find it rather silly to give a "division leader" preferential treatment even though their point total at the end of the season is less than a conference rival (see current Pacific Division leader as a prime example).

I'm of the opinion it should be 1 thru 8 in each conference regardless of who the division champs are.

Honestly I don't really have a problem with the current system, but wouldn't be against a change. It's a shame to think Pittsburgh or Philly are going to be out 1st round, just like Nashville or Detroit (if things stay as they are). Those are 4 excellent teams and 3 huge NHL markets, that all should reach the 2nd round.

2000 we had it happen to us as well, and it was worse that this year. 1999-2000 we were the 2nd best team in the entire NHL but was a 4th seed because St. Louis won the Central. Colorado, a division winner and 3rd seed, was given home ice in the 2nd round against us, despite us having 12 more points.

James Duthie was interviewed on TSN radio last week and said what they should do is do away with the automatic 1-2-3 seeds for division winners, and if you win your division, you're guaranteed a playoff spot, but 1-8 would be based on points... With the new CBA coming up, I wouldn't be surprised if this automatic 1-2-3 division winner seeds is talked about.

The NBA has the much better system: Division leaders are only guaranteed top 4 and not top 3. A 4th seed that has a worse record than a 5th seed will not get home advantage, instead the team with the better record gets the advantage. The NBA actually went to the current NHL system back in '06ish, and the result was that the 4th seeded Dallas Mavericks (eventually going to the NBA Finals) had the 2nd best league record at 60-22, but lost a tiebreaker against San Antonio (the same record), who got the 1st seed while 2nd and 3rd seeded teams had much worse records than Dallas. NBA immediately realized the system was flawed so they changed it.

It's sad how a league as bad as the NBA is, has a better league system than the NHL.

Right now we should be fighting Vancouver for the 2nd seed, while LA is the 4th seed without home ice due to record.

The NBA has the much better system: Division leaders are only guaranteed top 4 and not top 3. A 4th seed that has a worse record than a 5th seed will not get home advantage, instead the team with the better record gets the advantage. The NBA actually went to the current NHL system back in '06ish, and the result was that the 4th seeded Dallas Mavericks (eventually going to the NBA Finals) had the 2nd best league record at 60-22, but lost a tiebreaker against San Antonio (the same record), who got the 1st seed while 2nd and 3rd seeded teams had much worse records than Dallas. NBA immediately realized the system was flawed so they changed it.

It's sad how a league as bad as the NBA is, has a better league system than the NHL.

Right now we should be fighting Vancouver for the 2nd seed, while LA is the 4th seed without home ice due to record.

And the NBA knows how to market it's game better. They don't like it when their bottom teams knock out the top seeds, because they know it effects TV rating and the style of play in the later rounds, unlike the NHL who seem to love upsets.

Sorry I'm still pissed about 2004 and 2006 . People seemed to love the fact the Flames and Oilers took out the Wings early, but then they were wondering why the games were so slow, boring, and TV ratings were down in the later rounds.

The main problem with divisional winners getting 1-2-3 isn't so much that it's unfair, but that it undermines the whole ranking system. The whole idea of seeding teams 1-8 is so that the "best" team in the conference (seed 1) has the advantage of playing the "worst" team (seed 8). That's their reward for being ranked 1st. Or the 8th seed's hurdle for finishing in the lowest position. By putting "worse" teams at 4, it ruins this system by saying "hey, you weren't great but you still get a lower ranked opponent"